I'm not Catholic and I'm not planning to become one but in a way I will miss him too. I hope his not going to disappear into the dungeons of Vatican. Has he ever written any kind of biography? I'd love to read one if there is.

The succeeding pope will be the third pope that I see in my lifetime. Man, I feel old now.

You shouldn't. The average Pope lasts 7.2 years, which means that by 21.6 years, the average person has seen three Popes in office.

Jokes aside, isn't this period of sedevacante does put into question many claims about the Papacy brought forward by the Roman Catholic Church? Like my earlier comment about the Church being built on Peter and that Peter only has one successor, what now? On whom is the Church built on? And how are the Churches of the Catholic Communion in communion with one another? How are they "in communion with Rome" if there is no Bishop of Rome?

Good question.

One theory I've considered (I forget when, perhaps around the time JPII died) is that when the pope, i.e. the first-ranking bishop, dies, the second ranking bishop (traditionally the EP, back when he was Catholic) automatically becomes the (interim) first-ranking bishop.

But that opens up another can of worms: could he, during that time, order the new election to be cancelled, making himself the (non-interim) pope?

Well, it would depend how your statement would be interpreted. Obviously the Orthodox do not see the EP as anything as a Lt. Pope. Even if he were to assume an interim "first among equals" role, its not the same as the Western view of the Papacy.

Thing isn, isn't everyone in communion with the Pope in the Catholic ecclesiology? As opposed to each other?

I think you may need to be inspected for lice. You're more of a nit-picker than even I am!

Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire. May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

Jokes aside, isn't this period of sedevacante does put into question many claims about the Papacy brought forward by the Roman Catholic Church? Like my earlier comment about the Church being built on Peter and that Peter only has one successor, what now? On whom is the Church built on? And how are the Churches of the Catholic Communion in communion with one another? How are they "in communion with Rome" if there is no Bishop of Rome?

Good question.

One theory I've considered (I forget when, perhaps around the time JPII died) is that when the pope, i.e. the first-ranking bishop, dies, the second ranking bishop (traditionally the EP, back when he was Catholic) automatically becomes the (interim) first-ranking bishop.

But that opens up another can of worms: could he, during that time, order the new election to be cancelled, making himself the (non-interim) pope?

Well, it would depend how your statement would be interpreted. Obviously the Orthodox do not see the EP as anything as a Lt. Pope. Even if he were to assume an interim "first among equals" role, its not the same as the Western view of the Papacy.

I think you missed the qualifiers in that remark: I didn't say "(i.e. the EP)" but rather "(traditionally the EP, back when he was Catholic)" (emphasis added).

Jokes aside, isn't this period of sedevacante does put into question many claims about the Papacy brought forward by the Roman Catholic Church? Like my earlier comment about the Church being built on Peter and that Peter only has one successor, what now? On whom is the Church built on? And how are the Churches of the Catholic Communion in communion with one another? How are they "in communion with Rome" if there is no Bishop of Rome?

This actually supports something I have long believed. The Catholic Church (or, to put it in neutral terminology, the Roman Communion) isn't just a shorthand for "all the people who are in full communion with the pope". It a communion -- one member of which is the pope (well, most of the time ).

Jokes aside, isn't this period of sedevacante does put into question many claims about the Papacy brought forward by the Roman Catholic Church? Like my earlier comment about the Church being built on Peter and that Peter only has one successor, what now? On whom is the Church built on? And how are the Churches of the Catholic Communion in communion with one another? How are they "in communion with Rome" if there is no Bishop of Rome?

This actually supports something I have long believed. The Catholic Church (or, to put it in neutral terminology, the Roman Communion) isn't just a shorthand for "all the people who are in full communion with the pope". It a communion -- one member of which is the pope (well, most of the time ).

But the Pope can exclude anyone from this communion but he cannot be excluded by anyone from this communion. No one can excommunicate the Pope, at least not since Vatican I (it's been longer than that but Vatican I made that pretty clear).

I'm not Catholic and I'm not planning to become one but in a way I will miss him too. I hope his not going to disappear into the dungeons of Vatican. Has he ever written any kind of biography? I'd love to read one if there is.

The succeeding pope will be the third pope that I see in my lifetime. Man, I feel old now.

You shouldn't. The average Pope lasts 7.2 years, which means that by 21.6 years, the average person has seen three Popes in office.

Yeah. I mean, I've seen two more, but that is only because I was around when Pope Paul died, and then lived through the month papacy of Pope John Paul I.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I'm not Catholic and I'm not planning to become one but in a way I will miss him too. I hope his not going to disappear into the dungeons of Vatican. Has he ever written any kind of biography? I'd love to read one if there is.

The succeeding pope will be the third pope that I see in my lifetime. Man, I feel old now.

You shouldn't. The average Pope lasts 7.2 years, which means that by 21.6 years, the average person has seen three Popes in office.

Yeah. I mean, I've seen two more, but that is only because I was around when Pope Paul died, and then lived through the month papacy of Pope John Paul I.

Technically I was too, come to think of it. Though I was mostly a toddler then and never really knew any Pope before Pope John Paul II.

Btw, I think this is St. Nicholas Cathedral in Cairo, just across from al-Azhar

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Jokes aside, isn't this period of sedevacante does put into question many claims about the Papacy brought forward by the Roman Catholic Church? Like my earlier comment about the Church being built on Peter and that Peter only has one successor, what now? On whom is the Church built on? And how are the Churches of the Catholic Communion in communion with one another? How are they "in communion with Rome" if there is no Bishop of Rome?

1. Peter was the rock and he always will be2. We are in communion with one another. The times in which there is no Pope are a clear indication that our communion is more fundamentally founded in our common faith in Christ. When there is a Pope, we must be in communion, but this necessity is less fundamental than our communion in the faith. You may not like that answer because it does not fit your "disaffected Catholic" narrative, but such is life. No one, not even the authors of Pastor Aeternus thought that the Church suddenly ceases to exist when there is no Pope.

« Last Edit: February 28, 2013, 09:09:36 PM by Papist »

Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

Jokes aside, isn't this period of sedevacante does put into question many claims about the Papacy brought forward by the Roman Catholic Church? Like my earlier comment about the Church being built on Peter and that Peter only has one successor, what now? On whom is the Church built on? And how are the Churches of the Catholic Communion in communion with one another? How are they "in communion with Rome" if there is no Bishop of Rome?

2. We are in communion with one another. The times in which there is no Pope are a clear indication that our communion is more fundamentally founded in our common faith in Christ. When there is a Pope, we must be in communion, but this necessity is less fundamental than our communion in the faith.

It just indicates that your doctrine is confused and contradictory. Somewhere here I've posted about how Cajetan went on how the Church cannot exist without the supreme pontiff.

You may not like that answer because it does not fit your "disaffected Catholic" narrative, but such is life. No one, not even the authors of Pastor Aeternus thought that the Church suddenly ceases to exist when there is no Pope.

They didn't seem to think a lot of things out.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Jokes aside, isn't this period of sedevacante does put into question many claims about the Papacy brought forward by the Roman Catholic Church? Like my earlier comment about the Church being built on Peter and that Peter only has one successor, what now? On whom is the Church built on? And how are the Churches of the Catholic Communion in communion with one another? How are they "in communion with Rome" if there is no Bishop of Rome?

2. We are in communion with one another. The times in which there is no Pope are a clear indication that our communion is more fundamentally founded in our common faith in Christ. When there is a Pope, we must be in communion, but this necessity is less fundamental than our communion in the faith.

It just indicates that your doctrine is confused and contradictory. Somewhere here I've posted about how Cajetan went on how the Church cannot exist without the supreme pontiff.

You may not like that answer because it does not fit your "disaffected Catholic" narrative, but such is life. No one, not even the authors of Pastor Aeternus thought that the Church suddenly ceases to exist when there is no Pope.

They didn't seem to think a lot of things out.

goodness, the eye roll was so strong, they almost got stuck. Obviously when Pastor Aeternus was written, the authors were well aware of the fact that the church still continues to exist, even in the absence of a Pope. I'm still here, and so are quite a few Catholics I know. Anyway, I'm going to let you and choy, and whoever else wants to join your little circle, go on and keep enjoying yourselves. But it's a fruitless activity.

« Last Edit: February 28, 2013, 09:34:47 PM by Papist »

Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

Jokes aside, isn't this period of sedevacante does put into question many claims about the Papacy brought forward by the Roman Catholic Church? Like my earlier comment about the Church being built on Peter and that Peter only has one successor, what now? On whom is the Church built on? And how are the Churches of the Catholic Communion in communion with one another? How are they "in communion with Rome" if there is no Bishop of Rome?

1. Peter was the rock and he always will be2. We are in communion with one another. The times in which there is no Pope are a clear indication that our communion is more fundamentally founded in our common faith in Christ. When there is a Pope, we must be in communion, but this necessity is less fundamental than our communion in the faith. You may not like that answer because it does not fit your "disaffected Catholic" narrative, but such is life. No one, not even the authors of Pastor Aeternus thought that the Church suddenly ceases to exist when there is no Pope.

But as pointed out earlier, isn't it a clear indication that the Papacy is indeed unnecessary?

Jokes aside, isn't this period of sedevacante does put into question many claims about the Papacy brought forward by the Roman Catholic Church? Like my earlier comment about the Church being built on Peter and that Peter only has one successor, what now? On whom is the Church built on? And how are the Churches of the Catholic Communion in communion with one another? How are they "in communion with Rome" if there is no Bishop of Rome?

1. Peter was the rock and he always will be2. We are in communion with one another. The times in which there is no Pope are a clear indication that our communion is more fundamentally founded in our common faith in Christ. When there is a Pope, we must be in communion, but this necessity is less fundamental than our communion in the faith. You may not like that answer because it does not fit your "disaffected Catholic" narrative, but such is life. No one, not even the authors of Pastor Aeternus thought that the Church suddenly ceases to exist when there is no Pope.

But as pointed out earlier, isn't it a clear indication that the Papacy is indeed unnecessary?

Today, Orthodox Christians still believe that all bishops are sacramentally equal

I don't know what you mean by "sacramentally" equal...

But the Catholic Church, the Church of my baptism, teaches that each bishop participates in the magisterial charge and the petrine charge equally, and that each bishop and his See are the fullness of the Body of Christ.

The Catholic Church teaches that, but the Vatican who baptized you does not:

I can across something else of interest to the issue of the "manus" on supreme pontiff: Cajetan's Authority of Pope and Council Compared.

Quote

If someone insists that, when the apostolic see is vacant, the universal Church still exists, even without the pope as its head, the answer is that the universal Church exists only imperfectly, in such a way that this imperfection is a condition diminishing "the universal Church," just as a beheaded body diminishes an intact body. The universal [body], after all, includes within itself all its office-holding members, the chief of whom is the head. Accordingly, the Church at such a time is headless and without its supreme part and power. Whoever denies this falls into the error of John Hus, denying the necessity of a head of the Church, which was condemned by Saint Thomas and by Martin V with the Council of Constance." And if someone took the view that the universal Church in this sense [without its head] has power immediately from Christ and is represented by the universal council, he would err intolerably, as is obvious from the texts cited and as will become more apparent further on.

Concerning the second comparison at the other extreme, between the pope set on one side and the whole Church, that is, even including the pope, on the other, it is said that the pope with the rest of the Church does not have greater power of spiritual jurisdiction than he has by himself, because his power contains in itself the powers of all the rest, as their universal cause There is no power of jurisdiction in the Church which is not in the pope, as is inductively obvious.

Even the power to elect the pope is in the pope's power. This is obvious both from the case of Peter, who chose his successor, as John III says in c. Si Petrus [C. 8 q. 1 c. 1], and from the fact that the pope ordains the exercise of the power to elect, determining when and how an election should be held, and, what is more important, determining the location of that power, when he established that election belongs to at least two thirds of the cardinals. This is proved from c. Si papa [D. 40 c. 6], where it is said that the whole body of the faithful recognizes that its salvation depends most, after the Lord, on the pope's good condition. Pope Leo says in c. Ita Dominus [D. 19 c. 7], "The Lord wished the sacrament of this gift to belong to the office of all the apostles, so that He placed [it] principally in most blessed Peter, chief of all the apostles, that from him, as from a head, He might pour out His gifts, as it were, upon the whole body." It is absolutely obvious in that passage that all the rest of the Church's body is allocated power by the pope as if by a head.

Oh dear, it seems that not even a Council has the power to make a bishop into a supreme pontiff, a real problem for Petrine succession.

Cajetan speaks truly. This is what I I know was taught in the 1950s and 1960s.

If Mary denies it, either she is younger than we think, or her forgettery is working well, or she has suppressed it. But she is certainly NOT presenting (above) what was taught by the "Church of her baptism."

Cajetan was little more than a canon lawyer and active participant at Trent. I suppose that gives his words the weight of infallibility if you agree with him...however he does not singly speak for the Church and the Church has "corrected" him in other things as well as this.

I suppose that gives his words the weight of infallibility if you agree with him...however he does not singly speak for the Church and the Church has "corrected" him in other things as well as this.

Oh?

Quote

Cajetan rendered important service to the Holy See by appearing before the Pseudo[sic]-Council of Pisa (1511), where he denounced the disobedience of the participating cardinals and bishops and overwhelmed them with his arguments. This was the occasion of his defence of the power and monarchical supremacy of the pope. It is chiefly to his endeavors that is ascribed the failure of this schismatical movement, abetted by Louis XII of France. He was one of the first to counsel Pope Julius II to convoke a real [sic] ecumenical council, i.e. the Fifth Lateran.....It was the common opinion of his contemporaries that had he lived, he would have succeeded Clement VII on the papal throne....In theology Cajetan is justly ranked as one of the foremost defenders and exponents of the Thomistic school. His commentaries on the "Summa Theologica", the first in that extensive field, begun in 1507 and finished in 1522, are his greatest work and were speedily recognized as a classic in Scholastic literature. The work is primarily a defence of St. Thomas against the attacks of Scotus. In the third part it reviews the aberrations of the Reformers, especially Luther. The important relation between Cajetan and the Angelic Doctor was emphasized by Leo XIII, when by his Pontifical Letters of 15 October, 1879, he ordered the former's commentaries and those of Ferrariensis to be incorporated with the text of the "Summa" in the official Leonine edition of the complete works of St. Thomas,....Ithas been significantly said of Cajetan that his positive teaching was regarded as a guide for others and his silence as an implicit censure. His rectitude, candour, and moderation were praised even by his enemies. Always obedient, and submitting his works to ecclesiastical authority, he presented a striking contrast to the leaders of heresy and revolt, whom he strove to save from their folly. To Clement VII he was the "lamp of the Church", and everywhere in his career, as the theological light of Italy, he was heard with respect and pleasure by cardinals, universities, the clergy, nobility, and people.

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Jokes aside, isn't this period of sedevacante does put into question many claims about the Papacy brought forward by the Roman Catholic Church? Like my earlier comment about the Church being built on Peter and that Peter only has one successor, what now? On whom is the Church built on? And how are the Churches of the Catholic Communion in communion with one another? How are they "in communion with Rome" if there is no Bishop of Rome?

2. We are in communion with one another. The times in which there is no Pope are a clear indication that our communion is more fundamentally founded in our common faith in Christ. When there is a Pope, we must be in communion, but this necessity is less fundamental than our communion in the faith.

It just indicates that your doctrine is confused and contradictory. Somewhere here I've posted about how Cajetan went on how the Church cannot exist without the supreme pontiff.

You may not like that answer because it does not fit your "disaffected Catholic" narrative, but such is life. No one, not even the authors of Pastor Aeternus thought that the Church suddenly ceases to exist when there is no Pope.

They didn't seem to think a lot of things out.

goodness, the eye roll was so strong, they almost got stuck. Obviously when Pastor Aeternus was written, the authors were well aware of the fact that the church still continues to exist, even in the absence of a Pope. I'm still here, and so are quite a few Catholics I know. Anyway, I'm going to let you and choy, and whoever else wants to join your little circle, go on and keep enjoying yourselves. But it's a fruitless activity.

Well tell your "doctor" Cajetan to heal himself.

Btw, Cajetan is quite wrong: the canons forbid a bishop from appointing his successor, and they make no exception for the bishop of Rome. In fact, when the archbishop of Rome tried it, the Roman clergy forced him to rescind his nomination.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Jokes aside, isn't this period of sedevacante does put into question many claims about the Papacy brought forward by the Roman Catholic Church? Like my earlier comment about the Church being built on Peter and that Peter only has one successor, what now? On whom is the Church built on? And how are the Churches of the Catholic Communion in communion with one another? How are they "in communion with Rome" if there is no Bishop of Rome?

1. Peter was the rock and he always will be2. We are in communion with one another. The times in which there is no Pope are a clear indication that our communion is more fundamentally founded in our common faith in Christ. When there is a Pope, we must be in communion, but this necessity is less fundamental than our communion in the faith. You may not like that answer because it does not fit your "disaffected Catholic" narrative, but such is life. No one, not even the authors of Pastor Aeternus thought that the Church suddenly ceases to exist when there is no Pope.

But as pointed out earlier, isn't it a clear indication that the Papacy is indeed unnecessary?

Again we see the legalism of the Orthodox: we're without something for a couple weeks, so that's means it must be unnecessary.

As Pope Tawadros' cousin's cousin's cousin's son...I demand this side discussion on the theology of the Roman Papacy be held elsewhere!

no nepotism allowed.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Jokes aside, isn't this period of sedevacante does put into question many claims about the Papacy brought forward by the Roman Catholic Church? Like my earlier comment about the Church being built on Peter and that Peter only has one successor, what now? On whom is the Church built on? And how are the Churches of the Catholic Communion in communion with one another? How are they "in communion with Rome" if there is no Bishop of Rome?

1. Peter was the rock and he always will be2. We are in communion with one another. The times in which there is no Pope are a clear indication that our communion is more fundamentally founded in our common faith in Christ. When there is a Pope, we must be in communion, but this necessity is less fundamental than our communion in the faith. You may not like that answer because it does not fit your "disaffected Catholic" narrative, but such is life. No one, not even the authors of Pastor Aeternus thought that the Church suddenly ceases to exist when there is no Pope.

But as pointed out earlier, isn't it a clear indication that the Papacy is indeed unnecessary?

Again we see the legalism of the Orthodox: we're without something for a couple weeks, so that's means it must be unnecessary.

No. The point was,for lack of a loftier term, rather silly. Having had no Bishop for nearly two years our diocese can attest that while we were able to administer things without a Bishop certainly did not mean we could go on without one. I understand that the theology of the Papacy is distinct from that of a "mere" Bishop, but stripped of all excess, in the final analysis the Pope is but a Bishop.

Btw, I think this is St. Nicholas Cathedral in Cairo, just across from al-Azhar

The article does say it's in the "Patriarchal office in Cairo".

By the way...I just found out, I am the son of the Pope's cousin's cousin's cousin (my father)!!! No joke...lol!

As they kids say, "That's pretty dope!"

In Christ,Andrew

Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos

Jokes aside, isn't this period of sedevacante does put into question many claims about the Papacy brought forward by the Roman Catholic Church? Like my earlier comment about the Church being built on Peter and that Peter only has one successor, what now? On whom is the Church built on? And how are the Churches of the Catholic Communion in communion with one another? How are they "in communion with Rome" if there is no Bishop of Rome?

1. Peter was the rock and he always will be2. We are in communion with one another. The times in which there is no Pope are a clear indication that our communion is more fundamentally founded in our common faith in Christ. When there is a Pope, we must be in communion, but this necessity is less fundamental than our communion in the faith. You may not like that answer because it does not fit your "disaffected Catholic" narrative, but such is life. No one, not even the authors of Pastor Aeternus thought that the Church suddenly ceases to exist when there is no Pope.

But as pointed out earlier, isn't it a clear indication that the Papacy is indeed unnecessary?

No.

Logged

He will come again with glory to judge the living and the dead. His kingdom will have no end.

Jokes aside, isn't this period of sedevacante does put into question many claims about the Papacy brought forward by the Roman Catholic Church? Like my earlier comment about the Church being built on Peter and that Peter only has one successor, what now? On whom is the Church built on? And how are the Churches of the Catholic Communion in communion with one another? How are they "in communion with Rome" if there is no Bishop of Rome?

1. Peter was the rock and he always will be2. We are in communion with one another. The times in which there is no Pope are a clear indication that our communion is more fundamentally founded in our common faith in Christ. When there is a Pope, we must be in communion, but this necessity is less fundamental than our communion in the faith. You may not like that answer because it does not fit your "disaffected Catholic" narrative, but such is life. No one, not even the authors of Pastor Aeternus thought that the Church suddenly ceases to exist when there is no Pope.

But as pointed out earlier, isn't it a clear indication that the Papacy is indeed unnecessary?

Again we see the legalism of the Orthodox: we're without something for a couple weeks, so that's means it must be unnecessary.

That's only because you insist that, allegedly by necessity, there must always be a supreme pontiff.

We've done fine without one for nearly two thousand years.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Jokes aside, isn't this period of sedevacante does put into question many claims about the Papacy brought forward by the Roman Catholic Church? Like my earlier comment about the Church being built on Peter and that Peter only has one successor, what now? On whom is the Church built on? And how are the Churches of the Catholic Communion in communion with one another? How are they "in communion with Rome" if there is no Bishop of Rome?

1. Peter was the rock and he always will be2. We are in communion with one another. The times in which there is no Pope are a clear indication that our communion is more fundamentally founded in our common faith in Christ. When there is a Pope, we must be in communion, but this necessity is less fundamental than our communion in the faith. You may not like that answer because it does not fit your "disaffected Catholic" narrative, but such is life. No one, not even the authors of Pastor Aeternus thought that the Church suddenly ceases to exist when there is no Pope.

But as pointed out earlier, isn't it a clear indication that the Papacy is indeed unnecessary?

Again we see the legalism of the Orthodox: we're without something for a couple weeks, so that's means it must be unnecessary.

That's only because you insist that, allegedly by necessity, there must always be a supreme pontiff.

The Pope of Rome, to us, does not carry a signification of enchantment, wonder, and filial delight like he carries for Roman Catholics. He's not usually something of great interest to us.

Have you ever read any of Ratzinger´s books?

What significance does it have to what has been taught about the Papacy over the last Millennium?

What that has to do with my question? Being fascinated over pope emeritus and his books and believing in RC errors on papacy are two different things. For me the pope emeritus of Rome does carry a sort of signification of enchantment and wonder and I was saddened to hear that he will resign.

Jokes aside, isn't this period of sedevacante does put into question many claims about the Papacy brought forward by the Roman Catholic Church? Like my earlier comment about the Church being built on Peter and that Peter only has one successor, what now? On whom is the Church built on? And how are the Churches of the Catholic Communion in communion with one another? How are they "in communion with Rome" if there is no Bishop of Rome?

1. Peter was the rock and he always will be2. We are in communion with one another. The times in which there is no Pope are a clear indication that our communion is more fundamentally founded in our common faith in Christ. When there is a Pope, we must be in communion, but this necessity is less fundamental than our communion in the faith. You may not like that answer because it does not fit your "disaffected Catholic" narrative, but such is life. No one, not even the authors of Pastor Aeternus thought that the Church suddenly ceases to exist when there is no Pope.

But as pointed out earlier, isn't it a clear indication that the Papacy is indeed unnecessary?

Again we see the legalism of the Orthodox: we're without something for a couple weeks, so that's means it must be unnecessary.

So why all the fanfare about the conclave and the next Pope? If its unnecessary, then just have someone appoint a diocesan Bishop of Rome

Yes, let's just get rid of all the fanfare. In fact, let's get rid of any unnecessary tradition, like the weird hats that Orthodox Bishops wear. <moderators,please note the sarcasm. I do not actually think EO bishop's hats are "weird">

Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

The Pope of Rome, to us, does not carry a signification of enchantment, wonder, and filial delight like he carries for Roman Catholics. He's not usually something of great interest to us.

That said, there is something foreboding and creepy about this resignation. It doesn't sit well with me.

A few loose and cryptic thoughts. Cheers.

His resignation isn't as foreboding and creepy as all the conspiracy theories (and theorists, but the two go hand-in-hand) that have sprung up because a sick 85 year old bishop wants to retire to a monastery and not have the office he occupies become perceived as a joke as often happened when his sick predecessor took the stage to mumble a few words and break everyone's heart by having to watch said ill man being carted around like the showpiece he became.

Just a few loose and not-so-cryptic thoughts.

« Last Edit: March 01, 2013, 10:31:21 AM by Schultz »

Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen

The Pope of Rome, to us, does not carry a signification of enchantment, wonder, and filial delight like he carries for Roman Catholics. He's not usually something of great interest to us.

That said, there is something foreboding and creepy about this resignation. It doesn't sit well with me.

A few loose and cryptic thoughts. Cheers.

His resignation isn't as foreboding and creepy as all the conspiracy theories (and theorists, but the two go hand-in-hand) that have sprung up because a sick 85 year old bishop wants to retire to a monastery and not have the office he occupies become perceived as a joke as often happened when his sick predecessor took the stage to mumble a few words and break everyone's heart by having to watch said ill man being carted around like the showpiece he became.

Just a few loose and not-so-cryptic thoughts.

This is absolutely spot-on and reasonable. Now let us watch as somebody finds a reason to doubt it in favor of believing there's something fishy going on just because it's been a few hundred years since a Pope last resigned.

The Pope of Rome, to us, does not carry a signification of enchantment, wonder, and filial delight like he carries for Roman Catholics. He's not usually something of great interest to us.

That said, there is something foreboding and creepy about this resignation. It doesn't sit well with me.

A few loose and cryptic thoughts. Cheers.

Eh, Father?? "...a signification of enchantment, wonder, and filial delight."? Not quite sure what you mean.

His resignation doesn't need to sit well with you. I think any creepiness and foreboding is you perhaps reading into it something that probably just isn't there.

Agreed. I'm sad to see His Holiness, go. He was an scholarly, kind, and gentle man. But I have no feelings of "creepiness." Sometimes I think that non-Catholics endow the Papacy with more mistique than do Catholics.

Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

The Pope of Rome, to us, does not carry a signification of enchantment, wonder, and filial delight like he carries for Roman Catholics. He's not usually something of great interest to us.

That said, there is something foreboding and creepy about this resignation. It doesn't sit well with me.

A few loose and cryptic thoughts. Cheers.

His resignation isn't as foreboding and creepy as all the conspiracy theories (and theorists, but the two go hand-in-hand) that have sprung up because a sick 85 year old bishop wants to retire to a monastery and not have the office he occupies become perceived as a joke as often happened when his sick predecessor took the stage to mumble a few words and break everyone's heart by having to watch said ill man being carted around like the showpiece he became.

Just a few loose and not-so-cryptic thoughts.

This is absolutely spot-on and reasonable. Now let us watch as somebody finds a reason to doubt it in favor of believing there's something fishy going on just because it's been a few hundred years since a Pope last resigned.

There's your cue, Choy .

Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire. May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

The Pope of Rome, to us, does not carry a signification of enchantment, wonder, and filial delight like he carries for Roman Catholics. He's not usually something of great interest to us.

That said, there is something foreboding and creepy about this resignation. It doesn't sit well with me.

A few loose and cryptic thoughts. Cheers.

Eh, Father?? "...a signification of enchantment, wonder, and filial delight."? Not quite sure what you mean.

His resignation doesn't need to sit well with you. I think any creepiness and foreboding is you perhaps reading into it something that probably just isn't there.

Agreed. I'm sad to see His Holiness, go. He was an scholarly, kind, and gentle man. But I have no feelings of "creepiness." Sometimes I think that non-Catholics endow the Papacy with more mistique than do Catholics.

Yes to all that!

Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire. May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

The Pope of Rome, to us, does not carry a signification of enchantment, wonder, and filial delight like he carries for Roman Catholics. He's not usually something of great interest to us.

That said, there is something foreboding and creepy about this resignation. It doesn't sit well with me.

A few loose and cryptic thoughts. Cheers.

His resignation isn't as foreboding and creepy as all the conspiracy theories (and theorists, but the two go hand-in-hand) that have sprung up because a sick 85 year old bishop wants to retire to a monastery and not have the office he occupies become perceived as a joke as often happened when his sick predecessor took the stage to mumble a few words and break everyone's heart by having to watch said ill man being carted around like the showpiece he became.

Just a few loose and not-so-cryptic thoughts.

Just to add, a bishop who never wanted the promotion in the first place not wanting to cling to it when he is no longer up to it.

I look at the resignation as complimentary to the refusal of his predecessor (who considered it). The one affirmed that when one became a shell of a former self, he remains a self and not refuse for gabbage disposal (like the fans of euthanasia would have it), the other affirmed that one does not have to cling to a role to remain a self.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

The Pope of Rome, to us, does not carry a signification of enchantment, wonder, and filial delight like he carries for Roman Catholics. He's not usually something of great interest to us.

That said, there is something foreboding and creepy about this resignation. It doesn't sit well with me.

A few loose and cryptic thoughts. Cheers.

Eh, Father?? "...a signification of enchantment, wonder, and filial delight."? Not quite sure what you mean.

His resignation doesn't need to sit well with you. I think any creepiness and foreboding is you perhaps reading into it something that probably just isn't there.

Especially when the Vatican has mandated a retirement age for everyone else.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

The Pope of Rome, to us, does not carry a signification of enchantment, wonder, and filial delight like he carries for Roman Catholics. He's not usually something of great interest to us.

That said, there is something foreboding and creepy about this resignation. It doesn't sit well with me.

A few loose and cryptic thoughts. Cheers.

Eh, Father?? "...a signification of enchantment, wonder, and filial delight."? Not quite sure what you mean.

His resignation doesn't need to sit well with you. I think any creepiness and foreboding is you perhaps reading into it something that probably just isn't there.

Agreed. I'm sad to see His Holiness, go. He was an scholarly, kind, and gentle man. But I have no feelings of "creepiness." Sometimes I think that non-Catholics endow the Papacy with more mistique than do Catholics.

Not more than it has. As for the followers of the Vatican, some have less mistique for the office than we do. Others engage in outright idolatry.

Speaking of which, if the next one to take the office doesn't take or have the name Peter, we can put the Malachy prophecy in the same file with the Mayans.

« Last Edit: March 01, 2013, 11:23:49 AM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

His resignation isn't as foreboding and creepy as all the conspiracy theories (and theorists, but the two go hand-in-hand) that have sprung up because a sick 85 year old bishop wants to retire to a monastery and not have the office he occupies become perceived as a joke as often happened when his sick predecessor took the stage to mumble a few words and break everyone's heart by having to watch said ill man being carted around like the showpiece he became.

What I can't understand is why the Mormons, the NSF, and Dick Cheney each paid JPII thousands of dollars a day for doing that.